Given that almost all of the major networks are unanimous in their Anti-Trump bias and marginalize the views of at least half of the country on major issues, one would expect that at least one network would attempt to balance out the clear bias in the media.

It's long been assumed that Fox was the 'chosen one' to bring balance to the communist force permeating the airwaves, but if you asked many conservatives, they would probably tell you different, and they would probably be justified.

Judicial Watch's Chris Farrell was just banned from returning as a guest on Fox's networks after he pointed out that billionaire George Soros is organizing and funding these migrant waves to America to undermine the sovereignty of the US.

Farrell made his comments after he personally traveled to South America to investigate the caravans, which have been confirmed to be filled with hundreds of ISIS fighters and Anti-American gang members and Communist fighter types.

His comments also come after George Soros was one of the many Democrats who were targeted by the deranged man with make-shift 'energetic material' devices.

In the eyes of Fox executives, all it takes is some deranged person to silence any legitimate criticism of someone who has been a victim of political violence or intimidation. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that points to the accuracy of the statement, as there is when it comes to Soros' collaboration with these migrant caravans. It's a message that the high priests in the media have decreed must not be disseminated.

Most 'deplorable,' 'Nazi,' 'White Nationalist' conservatives recieving death threats, getting shot at during charity baseball games and at concerts, getting ricin letters in the mail are finding themselves wondering if that's all it takes, why isn't the media unanimously in approval of Trump and Republicans and why haven't the media ceased to portray trump as Hitler incarnate and why haven't they stopped painting Republicans as people who are out for a good "lynching."

Well the answer is clear: because it's an illogical, authoritarian standard to apply and any rational person would dismiss it right off the bat. The rational mind, and someone not trying to silence views that challenge their own views or authority, would not try and equate valid criticism with the mind and actions of a radical extremist.

What the rational mind would do is equate incendiary politcal hyperbole and deciet, sometimes referred to as 'fake news', with what individuals or groups sometimes use as justification for committing acts of violence, which wasn't the case with Chris Farrell's reporting.

For example, many people would see violence against Nazi's trying to carry out a genocide of millions of people as legitimate.

In fact, the rise of the Democrat controlled mob 'Antifa' has used just that excuse as a pretext to use explosives, biological weapons, and physical assault to shut down Republican speakers and events.

The Communist-Jihad has Mastered Double Speak

Another example can be seen when people - usually the same people using this authoritarian logic to censor conservatives - try to dismiss criticism of Islam and Jihad as "Islamophobia," citing that you can't allow the actions and beliefs of a small minority to define an entire group, as former President Obama did when he explained why he wouldn't use the term 'Radical Islamic Terrorism.'

After gettiing past the clear campaign by those with power and influence to undermine the alarm the threat Islamic Terroism warrants, a cursory examination of the statistics about terrorist attacks and the beliefs of those who describe themselves as "Muslims" reveals that the amount of people holding extremist beliefs that make assimilation impossible is far from a small minority.

This isn't just Citizens' Dawn's opinion either.

The former UK Equalities Chief, who literally published the official report on "Islamophobia" in 1997, has come out saying that for a while he thought that European muslims would integrate like previous waves of other migrants, but he was wrong and he admits that he "should have known better."

Well thanks for that! Fifteen hundred years of Muslim conquest and Jihad into Europe and you expect that an ideology that is exactly the same as it was 1500 years ago is going magically change because of a hunch and some wishful, new age 'The Secret' optimism, while you never say a word about Islams blatant issues?

Because of some ridiculous obsession with race and a pipe dream of everyone living in the exact same circumstances, you are going to risk plunging the world into another dark age? Got it.

Though you have to respect him for not being as delusionally stubborn as many people are in the media about the notion that they can maniuplate people's perception and manifest reality according to their will, and admitting that he was wrong.

Of course, for those of us not trying to plunge the world into a dark age, the writing is on the wall, as it has been for Italy's Matteo Salvini, Hungary's Victor Orban and Poland's Mateusz Morawiecki, and exemplified by the demise of Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emanuel Macron.

Czech President Milos Zeman has said that "It’s Impossible to Integrate Muslims into Western Europe."

German top author Thilo Sarrazin has shared similar sentiments.

“This leads me to say, until I have proof of the contrary, Islam is incompatible with political and religious freedom," Sarrazin said. "This is very dangerous, if we consider that Muslims will be the majority within the next two to three generations.”

Yet many leftist politicians and media personalities insist that there is some kind of insidious, vast, racial supremacist motive; there is absolutely no other explanation for what could have precipitated these devlopments. Nothing to do with the insane amount of Islamic 'migrants' being forced on these countries that are already being torn apart by previous waves of these people who are behaving like invaders; nothing to do with any concerns that their culture, laws, values, their civilization, is being wiped out.

Must be racism. After all they're white and they're the majority, in Europe.

Meanwhile, they attempt to shift the definition of terms like 'liberal values' to not be associated with Christian values: values of liberal tolerance which gave birth to the Rennaissance, the Protestant Reformation, and modern day western civilization.

In other words, they make arguments like 'well because you want to preserve a tolerant culture by excluding people trying to turn your civilization into an barbarous authoritarian despotism' well you aren't 'liberal.' That is not an exaggeration. That is exactly what is happening.

Amazingly, countries like China and Saudi Arabia, each on the UN Human Rights Council while each having institutionalized inhumane laws and practices, are now attempting to reshape the UN into their bully pulpit rather than a forum to promote democracy; to instruct the world on things like instituting global blasphemy laws criminalizing speech against prophets.

And yes, this is the exact sick kind of propaganda and disinformation that has charecterized all Communist or 'Socialist' power grabs that precede large scale genocide and murder (ie. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro).

Well that's not like the Soviet Union or anything. The EU isn't operating like the authoritarian Communist regime that threatened the countries in the past whatsoever.

Sarcasm aside, sure, there are going to be people who are in Islam for social reasons and don't really know what they are worshiping; sure there are going to be people who may pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow, as is the case with every religion.

The point is that when there are numerous passages in the text that is central to the religion that encourage acts of violence against 'infidels;' when there are passages that encourage taking slaves and raping non-muslims, you are going to have a religion that is much more problematic than what many in the west would view as the "traditional" religion, which would be an institution meant to help guide people on ways to better themselves and how to make themselves more in harmony with the divine.

When you consider these statistics and the religious context, then you will start to understand why Islam has such a problem with terrorism; then you might begin to think rationally and say "well, gee, maybe we should limit migration of these people based on their beliefs."

If someone has as their religion a religion that preaches "Death to the Jews" and "Death to America" does that mean that these 'beliefs' should be protected and you shouldn't discriminate against them because they hold these beliefs? Do these inherently problematic beliefs for people with differing beliefs qualify as a faith? If someone else uses the same word to describe a different set of beliefs that aren't so problematic, does that mean that we would have to accept the people who identify with the same word but hold different, more problematic views?

In fact, if you were one of these "pick and choosers" you'd think you'd want to subscribe to a religion where you didn't have to do quite so much picking and choosing; you'd think that you'd be a bit more sensitive to the reality confronting those who are concerned about importing terrorism into their countries rather than constantly trying to undermine that reality; you'd think you'd be a bit more outspoken on the assimilation failures within your own religious community you are defending; you'd think that, rather than attempting to rebrand or rewrite it's history you'd just pick a new term to describe a religion that isn't centered around such controversial texts, unless, of course, the objective is to disarm the defenses of those you seek to dominate into 'submission' - the translation of Islam - with the more palatable "migrant" or "refugee," which isn't quite as overtly offensive, to allow them to grow from within and subvert the democratic West with their numbers, and with other means that aren't quite as 'democratic,' by influencing laws and the court systems as a part of a "Civilization Jihad" takeover; a trojan horse if you will.

It certainly appears as though Muslims have been operating under this "civilization Jihad" as now they are attempting to change western laws to accomodate Sharia law.

The same welcoming, well intentioned, Christian arugments for Islamic immigration into European countries that represented an expression of good will and a desire for peaceful coexistence have been continuously taken advantage of and used by virtue-signaling communist/sadist types masquerading as liberals to detract from the objective reality about the catostrophic consequences Islamic migration is having all throughout Europe as the Islamic 'migrants' - or invaders, whichever you prefer - are establishing outposts often referred to as lawless 'No-Go Zones' and the assimilation by these invaders to the laws, customs, and cultures of their host countries have failed and they are terrorizing their host countries, bringing them to the brink of 'civil war'.

Actually, the term 'Civil War' would imply a war between people who are from those countries and identify as members of that society, which is certainly not the case here when they are often seen waving flags of terrorists, swearing allegiance to foreign Caliphs, and expelling non-muslims from the areas they inhabit or driving them out with terror attacks like acid attacks, that curiously don't get reported as terrorist attacks.

It's also curious that Jewish and Christian refugees fleeing "the Musliim refugees" where they are persecuted in places like Germany, Sweden France, and Spain aren't reported.

These people have the gall to Jihad around the globe while they complain about Israel's 'Occupation of Palestine,' a state that is actually tolerant of different faiths; a state that isn't actually racist.

It's a bit like the person emulating an organization that was an ally, and inspiration of Hitler and his genocide, parading around pointing the finger to various people calling them 'Nazi Remnants' while calling for all out war on, and destruction of, Israel.

This is the case with Turkey's Erdogan who emulates and seeks to reinstate the Ottoman Empire, which was an inspiration to Hitler.

According to Historian and author of "Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler" Stefan Ihrig:

This may be getting a bit too rational, oh I mean bigoted, because according to some, anyone criticizing immigration policies are really just islamophobes or bigots playing into the politics of fear and pandering to racial supremacists. Their concerns have nothing to do with what might happen if you bring massive amounts of people from a country where they riot when an apostate is not given the death penalty.

You just aren't liberal enough you Nazi!!

Of course, when someone actually is palling around with anti-semites and racial supremacists, then it doesn't get a mention. Because that's just the name of the game when it comes to the doublespeaking #CommunistJihad.

Back to the mental magic being carried out against the public by the corporate propaganda machine filled with mal-contents.

Sensationalists Hate Nationalists

The point is that there is a very real, tangible, significant difference in these cases. In one case, people are trying to make connections that don't exist like for example, Trump's criticism of the biased media as being responsible for the 'energetic material' sent to CNN in New York.

In the other case, the connection is so overt, so glaring that you have to draw up a complex equation that's filled with subtle assumptions and false equivalencies to mask the direct relationship.

For example, the argument made by a CNN panelist that because Hitler was a nationalist, no one can ever be a nationalist, or someone who is an advocate for one's nation, and you must consequently only be... a globalist?

If the majority of people who are committing acts of terrorism are predominantly from a select group of countries, and those countries are so unstable that you cannot vet people coming from those countries, the rational person would say "let's not bring in people from those countries right now."

The person with an agenda would point to the obvious fact that the people in these countries all share a similar ideology and say that "oh, that's racism!" or "that is discriminating based on culture or religion we need to let them all in," and not "well gee, maybe there is a pattern here we should examine more closely."

Of course this was the case when President Trump took action halting immigration from such countries, and the media and many of his critics took this exact approach.

George Orwell wrote about this kind of selective manipulation and deletion of language by 'the Ministry of Truth' in his book '1984,' which was a depiction of a Communist dystopian 'utopia' that was a police state that was consistently working to undermine free thought, expression, and love itself.

Sadly, these 'mis-characterizations' have been consistent at places like CNN, and we are now seeing the same kind of rhetoric dripping over into Fox, which people on the left try to brand as the offcial opposition network on the right.

Just recently Fox's Hannity had one of their regular Pundits on - Geraldo Rivera - to discuss the migrant Caravan invasion.

In the segment he suggested that the military deployed at the border would shoot the migrants seeking to exploit the US Asylum laws regarding refugees. Rivera is billed as a 'moderate' on Fox.

This fact about the migrant exploitation of our laws is undeniable given that Mexican President Nieto has offered them all asylum and jobs.

But, Rivera's comments echo the sentiment shared by his colleague Chris Cuomo over at CNN, who said:

There you have it. The kind of rhetoric coming from people in the media who are supposed to be responsible is reprehensible, at best, and it's remniniscent of scenes from the Crucible where the witches create the hysteria and cast aspersions in an effort to create misdirection and avoid detection.

As people like Carl Bernstein suggest, people like Trump and Farrell are 'waging a war on truth' when it's been exposed that they themselves are the traffickers in lies and deceit, Orwell seems to be right when it comes to the Communist infiltration of our society as can best be seen in the media, politics, and industries like the technology sector with companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

The disinformation has reached such a degree that, without a very serious effort by a major publication or netowrk to break down the points layed out in this article, turning the tide of discord it's created by exposing the kind of information warfare that has been waged on Americans is going to be very difficult, and not doing so will likely lead to serious conflicts.

When the KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov warned Americans about the level of subversion by Soviet stay behind networks so many years ago, I don't think anyone realised how prophetic his warning would be.